Search NEWS you want to know

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

First the obvious. The surprising part of the result is not the victory
of the AAP but the huge margin. This clearly indicates that this is not a
negative vote. There are two important reasons for the AAP victory. The
first is that a great majority of Delhi – especially the deprived –
found the 49-day government to be one which had yielded positive
results: petty exactions by police and government personnel had
disappeared, electricity and water bills were favourably impacted for
the consumer. Retrospectively this seems to have produced a sense that
AAP provided a representative party of governance and was not just a
party of Opposition.

The second important feature is that AAP not only managed to survive the
Lok Sabha verdict but actually consolidated their organisation. Elected
councillors implemented schemes with their allotted money and the
conviction of volunteers was energised again by the Delhi Dialogues
which brought them into close contact with local needs of especially the
underprivileged and produced local manifestos. All of this brought back
the involvement with practical activity and the belief in using the
political machinery to serve the nation, which is the real core of the
conviction that propels the AAP volunteers. These initiatives kept alive
the memory of the benefits of the 49-day government, gave conviction to
the volunteers and produced a sense of participation within the
processes of party functioning in the voters.

In general what we are seeing is a politics of practical results, of
which the main beneficiaries are the underprivileged. These benefits may
not be very large – indeed may be much less than what is promised by
election manifestoes. But it is a visible testament to the fact that
voting can make a difference to one’s everyday life - after the
elections are over. What is surprising here is that the middle class too
appears to have been influenced by a wave that was apparent only in the
lower sections of the social ladder – quite reversing the trend where
any pro-poor measure was seen as populist and hence illegitimate.
Clearly, in its success in the city state of Delhi, the AAP has tapped
into an urban phenomenon. This condition of acute diversity - regional,
caste, religion - in a megapolis appears to have made the language of
class politics acceptable as a universal language that can overdetermine
and bring together the pulls of region, religion, and caste.

Further, it’s a language of class that does not threaten the middle
class. The latter seems comfortable with a politics that aids the poor
without posing a danger to their status and interests. This is a new
language of class politics. Its bedrock is a politics of delivery that
can bring together different classes. On the other side, the BJP’s
dismal showing is as astounding. The first important reason is the
unabated anti minorities campaign by the RSS. This has the obvious
impact of posing a security issue for the minorities and for committed
secularists, but it has also exceeded the amount of negative religious
mobilisation that even committed voters of the BJP may be prepared to
tolerate. And across all sections, the statements and actions of the
Hindutva parivar has been seen as a distraction from concrete issues of
livelihood and living conditions. To this may be added the perceived
non-performance of the BJP government especially Mr Modi who has
projected himself as the face of the government. There may not be anger
against the government but it is seen as working at advertising its
governance than in performing governance. Worse, the BJP government is
now firmly perceived to be a pro- big business party without providing
corresponding benefits to the rest of the population which includes not
just the poor but also the middle class trader and government servant.
The benefits of liberalizing reforms for the people at large seem like
what the revolution was for many skeptical leftists: it was always
coming and never arriving. Finally it is the many mistakes of the BJP
leadership that had left its workers unenthused. One saw more posters of
the BJP than the workers in this election. It was bound to lose with
this lack of inner conviction.

It is difficult to forsee the impact of these elections. But one thing
is clear and that is that a two party electoral contest is going to
cripple the BJP especially if they keep on with their anti-minorities
and anti-secular drive. The second is that all parties – especially the
Congress that pioneered this path and the BJP that has followed with
uncritical enthusiasm in its path – have to recalibrate the
liberalization programme. It will mean more caring measures for the poor
(and for the environment) - in addition to tightening up the delivery
system. All major parties will have to think creatively and not follow
the line that comes from neo-liberal think tanks in Washington. Thirdly,
this will lead to confusion in the BJP organization and it will
certainly shake the position of the BJP leadership under Amit Shah. It
will be interesting to speculate what is going to happen if one of the
legs of the Modi-Shah combine gets seriously weakened. Finally there is
the possibility that the new class politics of delivery may spread
elsewhere, especially to other parts of urban India. Finally a caveat.
All of this will depend on how well the AAP government functions and is
perceived to do so. It can no longer take a cut and thrust method like
it did the last time round. It will have to manage many fronts over a
period of time, dealing with a hostile central government, implementing
(a good part) of their programme and last but by no means the least,
tackle the growing communal polarisation that constantly threatens to
break out into riots. This will not only impact on its core constituency
of Delhi. It will also determine if AAP is to represent the new urban
politics of the country and spread to other social constituencies.

Sunday, February 8, 2015

The government had made it clear that there would be no changes to the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010).

There has been sharp criticism of the government’s contention that
United States-based suppliers of nuclear reactors and parts will not be
directly liable in case of a nuclear accident, nor can they be sued by
Indian nuclear operators unless the contract they sign clearly states
it. The clarification of the government’s position was released by the
Ministry of External Affairs on Sunday, after it had been shared in a
memorandum with U.S. officials.

In it the government had made it clear that there would be no changes to
the Civil Nuclear Liability for Damage Act (2010), but that liability
for suppliers would apply only if it was written into the contract. The
government also stated that Section 46, which relates to victims of an
accident being able to sue under ‘tort laws’ does not relate to
suppliers at all, and the Parliament debate over the CLND law in 2010
had seen amendments on the issue rejected.

However, Left-party members, who had tried to push for those amendments
counter this. “I think that it is illegal for the MEA to contend that
the suppliers are not included in ‘tort’ liability, and we will take up
all these issues in parliament.” CPI leader D. Raja told The Hindu.
Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari also questioned why Indian
insurance companies had to bear the brunt of the liability. “The
explanation given seems to be in derogation of the law and the will of
the people,” he said. Former Chairman of the Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board Dr. A. Gopalakrishnan also criticised the government’s position
saying it “violates the intent and spirit of the CLND,” and accused the
Modi government of trying to “facilitate the business interests of the
foreign and domestic companies, in utter disregard of the devastating
human suffering which is sure to follow a potential severe nuclear
accident.”

Interestingly, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, who had attended the early
negotiations of the nuclear contact group that hammered out the recent
agreement, had argued just the opposite when he was Leader of the
Opposition in September 2013. In an article available on the BJP
website, he had argued that the supplier must be made liable mandatorily
and not as an option. “Any attempt to permit NPCIL to abdicate the
right given to an operator, would be compromising… and contrary to the
provisions of Ssection 17(b) of the Act,” he had argued at the time.
When contacted about the agreement on Sunday conflicting with the BJP’s
previous stand, Mr. Jaitley made no comment.

On the issue of tracking nuclear material by the U.S., the MEA
spokesperson Syed Akbaruddin said that “there would only be IAEA
safeguards”, not U.S. safeguards. However, he didn’t reply to the
specific question on whether India has agreed for the first to time to
share data with the U.S., as The Hindu had reported last week.